Assuming the worst case scenario, the population will be reduced as a matter of course. In my post I meant that if there happened to be a virulent pandemic or war or natural disaster that wiped out tons of people, the remaining people could enjoy higher resource consumption until the population recovered, which it would as long as resources remained.
Your population figure is 20 years out of date, but yea I pretty much agree with you1.) 6 billion people on the planet cannot be re-programmed to reduce their consumption and use fewer resources in time to avoid the catastrophic tipping point scheduled to happen in 12 years. This is especially true since mother nature isn't co-operating as I pointed out in my original post on this thread. Maybe that's her strategy all along, assuming she exists and has a strategy, of course.
Mmmm, I think the technologies DO exist to do at least some of the stuff in the GND that I read, I know you meant "to do what she is proposing" to mean economically feasible, but I want to spew out some idearrhea.2.) The AOC/GND strategy is an even bigger fantasy because the technologies simply do not exist to do what she is proposing. . . The GND crowd is saying that we decided to put a man on the moon and did it in X number of years but that problem was simpler by orders of magnitude than turning down the temperature on the whole planet. To begin with we knew how to do it and we knew it could be done.
For instance, insulating buildings was in there. Insulating buildings is a pretty mature concept, people already do it when it makes sense. The GND would mandate it for all buildings, new and existing, which is the issue. The technology that doesn't exist is how to heat and light all those buildings, smelt the metal used to make them, and run the construction equipment to build them, etc, all on renewable energy and how to do it economically/at scale. You could do it, but just not like we do now. Maybe if everyone was content to live in a basic 500 sq ft? I think that could be done with existing technology. If anything, it should have been done like 80 years ago when pretty much all of modern America was built. There was something about the GND that seemed kind of off to me, and I think it's that there is such a strong element of wishing it was possible to go back in time and do things in a better way. Since that isn't possible, it's kind of like a temper tantrum that a child throws when they can't defy reality.
Same with eliminating air travel (for commoners, of course, not the politicians). You could do it, but people would have to accept the trip from NYC to LA taking several days to a few weeks, depending on mode of travel.
Reducing meat consumption is a non-technological fix. Stop subsidizing the agriculture industry and, along with the transportation infrastructure reduction, the price of meat would rise, lowering its consumption. That's an easy one. I think the cow farts would be offset by all the new human farts caused by eating more beans, but that's neither here nor air.
100% renewable energy is impossible with current technology and energy use levels, not withstanding being done in conjunction with all the other stuff. Building smart grids is already underway (The Grid by Bakke talks about it more), but is meeting resistance (heh) and even if you were an authoritarian, by its nature it's a local issue anyways.
The insane identitarian stuff that was included in there is the anti-environmental stuff we've already discussed in this thread so I won't bother with it.
Collapse now and avoid the rush!So if what they are saying is true I say batten down the hatches and get ready for the rough weather ahead.
